Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  dramas

Patricia Mauceri Doesn’t Hate Gay Soap Characters. She Just Won’t Approve of Them

0_61_pmauceri3201

Remember Patricia Mauceri? She’s the soap actress who quit her role as maid Carlotta Vega on One Life To Live this summer because she didn’t want to play a character who even tacitly approved of a homosexual relationship, like the one between Kyle and Fish (played by Scott Evans). Now that she’s had some time to cool down, she wants to clarify things: She didn’t have a problem being on a show with a gay relationships. But:

Hellz to the NO was she going to play someone who approved of it! That goes against her religious beliefs! “I did not object to being in a gay storyline,” Vega says of the show, which this week began airing episodes featuring her replacement. “I objected to speaking the truth of what that person, how that person would live and breathe and act in that storyline. And this goes against everything I am, my belief system, and what I know the character’s belief system is aligned to.”

Ya know what? That’s fine. If your religion includes a belief in hatred toward other human beings because of who they love, that’s your call. Just don’t expect any love from Hollywood again, lady. Because it’s run by homosexuals. And they really don’t like it when actors have the audacity to call the shots writers make. (Evidently Ms. Vega did not have a problem playing a stereotype: the Hispanic maid.)

So go ahead, explore your legal options Ms. Vega. And while we’re absolutely against an employer discriminating against someone’s religion, there’s a reason there are exceptions — like how a casting director can choose to nix a white actor when she needs to fill the role of a black person. Or how a soap opera can get rid of an actress who refuses to play a character necessary to the storyline.

By:           editor editor
On:           Sep 4, 2009
Tagged: , , , ,

  • 127 Comments
    • Cheesus
      Cheesus

      i love the hypocrisy of peeps like her and carie pre-jeans … usually woman (and with that hairstyle, what gives!?)..the whole…its aiight but guess what, not on my watch cause my beliefs dont believe in it.

      Have a nice life in your bowl, bitch!

      Sep 4, 2009 at 5:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cheesus
      Cheesus

      she was the biggest streotype anyway, playing a maid…that didnt affect her tho.

      so funki

      Sep 4, 2009 at 5:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dick Mills
      Dick Mills

      Maybe she should start looking for employment as a real maid, or become a stay-at-home housewife, or maybe NOM needs another martyr… Her options are endless.

      Sep 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Disgusted American
      Disgusted American

      A-Ok Ms Vega….sounds like someone needs a reality check. Shame pretty lady,ugly mind.

      Sep 4, 2009 at 9:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Publuis
      Publuis

      While employers have the right to hire and fire whom they like, remember it will cut both ways. Is this woman the first to tell the writers they got the character all wrong? No. She won’t be the last either. But if you do not favor the political correct version, off the show you go. She knows her character better than the writers, but the writers wanted to score political points. It will be easy for her to prove the writers intentionally ignored her inputs forcing her off the show. They admit it. The question is whether in the of Rodney King a jury will follow the law or give a huge reward to someone fighting the faceless broadcasting corporation. Remember she’s an actress. When she takes the stand, she can bring the tears and terror of fighting for what she thought was right for the character, not herself. Who is the defense going to put on the stand? Some hack writer? Don’t think so. Some deep-pocket producer? LOL! Think about it boys and girls.

      Sep 4, 2009 at 9:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rob Tisinai
      Rob Tisinai

      “She knows her character better than the writers, but the writers wanted to score political points.”

      Um, the writers invented her character. See, the characters you see on soaps aren’t real people. The writers make them up, and they hire a real person to pretend to be the made-up person. But the writers are the ones who decide on the words coming out of the mouth of the real person they hired.

      “It will be easy for her to prove the writers intentionally ignored her inputs forcing her off the show.”

      Okay,the real person that the writers hired? That person signed what’s called a contract. It’s like an agreement about who will do what. Now, the pretender gets to say the words, but doesn’t get to choose the words or have “input” to the words, unless the contract says so. And you generally have to be a really popular pretender — something they call a “star” (though they don’t really mean a hot, glowing ball of hydrogen) — in order to get that kind of contract.

      So, you see, this pretender is what the legal experts call “shit out of luck.”

      Sep 4, 2009 at 11:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      The poor woman doesn’t seem to be able to distinguish between her own personal feelings and those of her character. Patricia, darling, you really need to get a clue.

      Which is sad, really. The woman seemed nice enough and now she has to bring this complication into it.

      Sep 4, 2009 at 11:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • me
      me

      I thought the actors and actresses on soaps were supposed to be good looking. This woman is hideous.

      Sep 4, 2009 at 11:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Like her opinion matters to us???

      Sep 5, 2009 at 1:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John K.
      John K.

      @Publuis: She knows the character better than the writers? The writers CREATED the fucking character! She’s completely wrong here. She is an actress, and being an actress means sometimes playing characters who do not share your values. In fact, if you are able to do that, it makes you arguably a BETTER actress. That about says all that needs to be said about her. She can just disappear now for all I care.

      Sep 5, 2009 at 1:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kristopher
      Kristopher

      Patricia Mauceri’s character hasn’t played a maid in sometime now on the show – she owns a restaurant in Angel Square. She initially played Dorian Lord’s housekeeper.

      Sep 5, 2009 at 2:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Yuki
      Yuki

      Um… wow. She’s paid to act as someone who approves of it, not to actually approve of it. That’s the point of acting: assuming different roles.

      Sep 5, 2009 at 3:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dan D.
      Dan D.

      In Ms. Mauceri’s defense, I’d say she has a point when it comes to knowing her character better than the writers. She’s played the character consistently since the mid ’90s, while in the meantime one writing team after another has come and gone (I know this because I’ve followed the show for many, many years). Sometimes the new writers who come in don’t write true to the history of the characters — they often ignore that history, sadly — which results in storylines that don’t quite add up and in characters doing and saying things that us long-time viewers find, well, not quite believable. I think this is one of those times. The character of Carlotta Vega has always been portrayed as a very strong, opinionated woman who is a devout Catholic, and very religious conservative and traditional when it comes to “family values”. That’s who she’s always been, for better or worse. Now suddenly this week the writers expect us to believe that when she (mistakenly) believes her son is gay, she simply, without a moment’s hesitation, throws her arms around him and says “Why did you feel you couldn’t tell me this? It’s OK, God made you that way, I just want you to be happy.” Well, as a longtime viewer who’s been familiar with her character all these years, I didn’t quite buy it. I see Carlotta Vega as someone who would certainly love her son no matter what but would have a big problem with him being gay, at least in the beginning, and wouldn’t accept it until after she’d spent considerable time giving it some serious thought, and only then would she finally come around. That’s just how I see her character reacting based on her long history which I’ve been viewing all these years.

      As for the poster who said Ms. Mauceri is “hideous” — well, she’s been playing a middle-aged, working-class mother of two grown men who’s spent her whole life working her fingers to the bone and has had more than her share of hard knocks to boot. And that role, it seems to me, doesn’t call for someone being too goodlooking or glamorous. That’s what I like about this show — they have quite a few hot-looking actors and actresses, but they also have others who look like everyday, ordinary real people, and that makes it more believable and true to life.

      And just in case anyone’s wondering — since mine seems to be a minority opinion around here — no, I’m not a homophobe. I am a gay man who is in fact delighted that there are gay storylines on daytime TV nowadays. I just want to see characters who act in believable ways given their history.

      Sep 5, 2009 at 4:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • RomanHans
      RomanHans

      Oh, maids are notorious for being picky. It’s because they have lots and lots of money saved up, so they don’t have to worry about supporting their families. In fact, usually their husbands have great jobs and they just do it to get out of the house. They’ll poke into all your stuff and if they see porn or drugs or something else they don’t like they’ll grab their Lysol and Windex and go, “Girl, I am so out of here!”

      Sep 5, 2009 at 11:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WBN
      WBN

      Seems like all the hate is directed toward this excellent actress; she doesn’t “hate” people whose lifestyles she cannot approve. Do you hate her because you don’t approve of her lifestyle that contains this conviction? Sheesh. She didn’t quit either–she was dismissed. So much for freedom in America. We disagree about a lot in this country; we cannot hate and punish and ridicule over all of it.

      Sep 5, 2009 at 12:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bryan
      Bryan

      I know this crazy bitch. She hates gay people. She is best friends with someone I know. She stands outside of gay bars trying to get prople to change. She spends 10 hours a day on the phone prayig with people CRAZY!!!!!

      Her son works at the apple store in nyc i think he may be a little gay.

      She prays so much with the lord why the fuck is she not gettig any acting jobs.

      I have soooooooooo much to tell.

      Sep 5, 2009 at 12:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @WBN:

      Do you hate her because you don’t approve of her lifestyle that contains this conviction?

      No sane gay person would hate this woman because of her heterosexual lifestyle. It’s her “conviction” that we hate.

      It is our very freedom in America that allows to say that we don’t hate the sinner, we just hate the sin.

      And that is a two-way street.

      Sep 5, 2009 at 1:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @Bryan:

      Bring it on. We can’t wait to hear it. LOL

      Sep 5, 2009 at 1:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rob Tisinai
      Rob Tisinai

      “She didn’t quit either–she was dismissed. So much for freedom in America.”

      So you think–what? That no one should be free to fire someone who has refused to do the job they contracted to do? So much for freedom in America.

      Sep 5, 2009 at 1:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • edgyguy1426
      edgyguy1426

      @Rob Tisinai: Loved your explanation!

      Sep 5, 2009 at 1:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Miss Understood
      Miss Understood

      @WBN: re: Do you hate her because you don’t approve of her lifestyle that contains this conviction?

      Yes!

      Sep 5, 2009 at 1:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert
      robert

      She has the nerve to call herself an actress? Hell, Charlton Heston was an arch homophobe yet played Michaelangelo who was gay. Its called acting, you dumb bitch? I hope she finds no work. Its bad enough these right wing religious wackos infiltrate and influence politics and another when it comes to acting in a role where a character approves the sexual orienation of another? These idiots are disconnected from reality. I bet you anything she has a lot of skeletons in her closet, most of these psychopathic nutjobs usually do, unstable, scared, insecure, frightened people.

      Sep 5, 2009 at 1:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @robert:

      These idiots are disconnected from reality. I bet you anything she has a lot of skeletons in her closet, most of these psychopathic nutjobs usually do, unstable, scared, insecure, frightened people.

      As always, you are right on the money!

      People who are sane, well-adjusted and secure within themselves, seldom if ever, feel the need to rail at or conduct a Crusade against anyone.

      They are too busy living the happy lives that they have created for themselves.

      Sep 5, 2009 at 1:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert
      robert

      @schlukitz:

      Totally agree with that!

      Sep 5, 2009 at 2:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      @Rob Tisinai:

      LOL. Well said, Rob. I agree that legally she doesn’t have a leg to stand on. An actor is free to make suggestions if he or she is uncomfortable with dialogue or business, but ultimately the writers, directors and, most of all, the Executive Producer has the last word. It is possible for TPTB to be in violation of AFTRA regulations, but certainly not in a case such as this one (in my opinion anyway).

      It’s too bad that this happened. Patricia Mauceri is a mediocre actress, but the actress they got to replace her is horrific beyond believe. Granted, she didn’t have much time to prepare, but the role is tiny. I can’t believe they couldn’t find someone better, especially in New York.

      MESSAGE TO THE EDITORIAL STAFF (I don’t know how to post a message that’s not a reply to another poster.):

      The actress’s name is “Mauceri,” not “Vega.” “Vega” is the character’s name. Beginning with the second paragraph of the article, she is referred to as “Vega.”

      Sep 5, 2009 at 2:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      Test.

      Sep 5, 2009 at 2:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      MESSAGE TO THE EDITORIAL STAFF

      The actress’s name is “Mauceri,” not “Vega.” “Vega” is the character’s name. Beginning with the second paragraph of the article, she is referred to as “Vega.”

      Sep 5, 2009 at 2:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @FlyFoy:

      I believe that you can also send a message directly to:

      holla@queerty.com

      Sep 5, 2009 at 2:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jonjon
      jonjon

      I hate to quote someone else on this site somewhere:

      And why would the opinion matter from someone who belongs to a cult, whose symbol is a poor man being tortured on a pole?

      Sep 5, 2009 at 3:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      @schlukitz:

      Thanks, Schlukitz.

      Sep 5, 2009 at 3:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GJR
      GJR

      A few things should be cleared up on this:
      1) Mauceri was a recurring player, she has been for years. She had no contract, so she was not fired, just will not be asked back again
      2) Funny how she had no problem with “teh gay” when she was in a film with semi-out Tuc Watkins, also from One Life to Live, about a gay romance. Hypocrite much?
      3) Mauceri was about no. 50 on the totem pole at that show. She is on 6-7 times a year. When the stars of the show like Erika Slezak can’t re-write whole scenes, why the hell should she?
      4) The whole kerfuffle was about basically 5 minutes of dialogue, where she very briefly thinks her son might be gay because he has this book intended for Oliver Fish. This is why she cannot stand/abide by: Saying she would support her son if he is gay?

      Sep 5, 2009 at 5:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • will clemens
      will clemens

      Exactly what religion is she?

      Sep 5, 2009 at 6:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      @will clemens:

      She’s a Hatist.

      Sep 5, 2009 at 8:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mikeandrewsdantescove
      mikeandrewsdantescove

      I want to she is the biggest hypocrite out there. Patricia and Tuc Watkins (David Vickers) starred in a gay film, I Think I Do back in 1998 also starring Alexis Arquette. Since that point Alexis has gone on to have a sex change and Tuc has voiced his support of gay marriage. She didn’t seem to have a problem being involved in this film back in the 90s.

      Mike
      http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewIMix?id=283095406

      Sep 5, 2009 at 10:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      @FlyFoy:

      …beyond belief.

      Sep 6, 2009 at 12:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Vern
      Vern

      I like it that she had the courage not to following the lemmings. Why should she compromise her belief system? Her convictions led her to her decision. What’s up with all the hate here?

      Sep 6, 2009 at 5:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ryan
      Ryan

      Really, Vern? You like the fact that she was the “courage” to hate gays, and you’re confused by the fact that gay people aren’t happy about that? Really? You wouldn’t happen to be a Troll, would you?

      Sep 6, 2009 at 7:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert
      robert

      @Vern:

      Like most right wing religious wackos, why does she bring her religion into the workplace, what is the point? That’s the problem with these fucking nutjobs, they’re always shoving their religion down our throats. She needs to read the new testament again in which Jesus lambasted those who trumpet their religion from the rooftops. Why doesn’t she go after the straight adulterers, particularly the phony religious politicians who get caught doing the opposite of what they espouse?

      I bet you most of the cast she works with are screwing around, she should go after them first, get her own house in order before attacking us, the fucking hypocrite that she is. People like her need to keep their religion where it belongs, in the home, not in the political arena or place of employment. There’s a time and place for everything, clearly she crossed the line. I pity any poor kid having a parent like her. People like that don’t love their kids unconditionally, a form of child abuse and in my view are unfit to parent any child. She and her ilk need long-term psychiatric help.

      Sep 6, 2009 at 9:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      The bottom line is this: she’s an actress who refused to play a role. My view is that she can’t be choosy. In this business, you have to separate your roles from your personal feelings. It’s the sign of a true professional.

      By refusing to play a role, Patricia effectively diminished herself as an actress. Nuff said.

      Sep 6, 2009 at 10:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GJR
      GJR

      @jason:

      Beyond that, it is her amazing hypocrisy. In just the past few years, her character has seen her son marry someone just so she can get US citizenship, has lied about her own son when she wasn’t the mother, has engaged in extra-marital sex..the list goes on and on. Being an actor on a soap is not the place to object to material. Yes, occasionally actors do refuse materials, like if they were asked to play a child molester or a Nazi or whatever. But here we are talking about a 5-minute scene where she thought her kid could be gay (he’s not) and she was supportive.

      On a practical level too, the feeling was, “What the hell gives you the right..” She was a recurring player on the show, without a contract. She was asked back by the discretion of management. Even the top stars on the show cannot always make major changes to stories and have endured the suckiest of things their character would never do. So yeah, they told Mauceri to go fuck off for her bitching about a 5 minute scene.

      Sep 6, 2009 at 10:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GJR
      GJR

      @Vern: Um what compromise her belief system? Because she’s there as an actress to do a job, read the text as written. She’s not going to do well in her further career as an actress – not simply because she was hostile to gay people – but because she will have a reputation of being difficult and not playing the material as requested. Unless you are a huge, huge star, people don’t want to be bothered with that. So she is free to express her beliefs – from the unemployment line. Oh, and the same would go for anyone who, is, say, a white supremacist. Try saying you won’t work with black people or serve them as customers…see how long that “belief system” (bigotry) lets you keep a job.

      Sep 6, 2009 at 10:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @Vern:

      I like it that she had the courage not to following the lemmings.

      Lemmings being those of us who are the victims of her homophobia and who call this woman on her bigotry and homophobia.

      Why should she compromise her belief system?

      Yeah. God forbid that anyone might point out to her that discriminating against any minority group is wrong, no matter how fucked-up her belief system might be. Hitler had a belief system that that Jews tainted the Aryan race. We saw where that “belief” went, didn’t we?

      Her convictions led her to her decision.

      Convictions, eh? What a nice warm fuzzy word for bigotry and homophobia.

      Reverend Jerry Falwell had convictions.

      Pat Robertson has convictions.

      Reverend Fred Phelps has convictions.

      All of their “convictions” centered on hatred for homosexuals. Would you champion their convictions with as much vigor as you do the convictions of this anti-gay woman?

      What’s up with all the hate here?

      No one is withholding approval of her heterosexuality or disapproving of it. Check out where the actual hatred is coming from including your own apparent hatred of gays when you compare those of us who protest her ugly words, to being lemmings.

      I can’t figure out if you are just another gay apologist, or a bigoted homophobe yourself?

      Sep 6, 2009 at 11:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • RainaWeather
      RainaWeather

      “I objected to speaking the truth of what that person, how that person would live and breathe and act in that storyline. And this goes against everything I am, my belief system, and what I know the character’s belief system is aligned to.”

      She’s talking about the character’s beliefs. And from what I’ve heard from people who watch the show, it would be very out of line for this character to accept gay people.
      __________________________________
      Also, from the linked story…

      An ABC spokesperson said they were not aware of any such claims by Mauceri, adding such claims “would be frivolous.”

      So ABC said that she didn’t even say what FOX and Queerty are claiming she said.

      Also from the story…
      Patricia Mauceri says she was fired and abruptly replaced for objecting to a gay storyline because of her religious beliefs.

      This is a lie. If you read what she said, she didn’t claim to be fired because of her beliefs. FOX news deliberately tried to spin this story to make it look like this woman is a “persecuted” Christian when in reality, she just wants to be true to her character. And Queerty, stupidly, just believes a story from fucking FOX news. FOX NEWS!!!

      Now why are we trying to paint this woman as a raging homophobe when we don’t even know what she personally believes?

      Sep 6, 2009 at 1:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @RainaWeather:

      Now why are we trying to paint this woman as a raging homophobe when we don’t even know what she personally believes?

      Mauceri said, quote:

      “I objected to speaking the truth of what that person, how that person would live and breathe and act in that storyline. And this goes against everything I am, my belief system, and what I know the character’s belief system is aligned to.”

      Was this or was this not her exact quote? I am no fan of FOX NEWS either, but are you suggesting that FOX NEWS falsely made this statement up? And if they did, why is our heroine not suing FOX NEWS for reporting the facts inaccurately and causing her to loose face?

      Sep 6, 2009 at 1:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • RainaWeather
      RainaWeather

      @schlukitz: She is talking about her CHARACTER. The character is supposed to be a very stereotypical Catholic Latina mother (ie., does not approve of the gays). It would be ridiculous for her character to do a 180 and all of a sudden be accepting. Regardless of her personal beliefs, the character she plays is homophobic.

      Sep 6, 2009 at 2:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash
      BramNash

      Her belief system tells her that homosexuality is wrong. How the fuck is that homophobia? YOU are not homosexuality, so stop fucking claiming hating homosexuality is hatred of you. I used to toe the party line and spout such drivel, but it took me being exposed to the rank prejudice and empty lookism that the gay “community” amounts to, before I finally got the strength to confess what I knew inside – just how logically weak and emotionally manipulative gay liberty or gay “rights” efforts has been.

      Sep 6, 2009 at 2:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @BramNash:

      Sorry, Bram. Your argument, if you can call it one, does not fly.

      The use of the term “belief system” is a total cop-out and an absolute refusal to take responsibility for one’s own thoughts, feelings and mores.

      Her belief system tells her that homosexuality is wrong. How the fuck is that homophobia?

      Except it is NOT her belief system. It is the “belief” system of the church that she has been brainwashed with for her entire life. She has been told over and over and over that homosexuality is wrong, a sin and a deviation that is against God’s will.

      She didn’t come out of her mother’s womb crying “I hate faggots”. No one is born hating anyone. It has to be drilled into the heads of little children from the day they are born until their thinking is precisely like that of their parents and the churches to which they belong.

      Neither is anyone born a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim, which are all belief systems that have to be learned. And the children of people of these belief systems have no choice in the matter. They become the victim of whatever religion their parents happen to be belong to with all the attendant bigotry and hatred their particular religion espouses.

      homophobia
      – 3 dictionary results
      ho?mo?pho?bi?a
      ??/?ho?m??fo?bi?/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh] Show IPA
      Use homophobia in a Sentence
      See web results for homophobia
      See images of homophobia
      –noun
      unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
      Origin:
      1955–60; homo(sexual) + -phobia

      Related forms:
      ho?mo?pho?bic, adjective
      Dictionary.com Unabridged
      Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
      Cite This Source
      |
      Link To homophobia
      ho·mo·pho·bi·a (h?’m?-f?’b?-?)
      n.

      1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
      2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

      [homo(sexual) + -phobia.]
      ho’mo·phobe’ n., ho’mo·pho’bic adj.
      The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
      Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
      Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
      Cite This Source
      Medical Dictionary

      Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
      Pronunciation: “hO-m&-’fO-bE-&
      Function: noun
      : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discriminationagainst homosexuality or homosexuals —ho·mo·phobe /’hO-m&-”fOb/ noun —ho·mo·pho·bic /”hO-m&-’fO-bik/ adjective
      Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

      What part of that definition do you find confusing, Bram? The only one being “emotionally manipulative” here, is YOU! If you don’t like queers, then what are you doing here in the first place? Why aren’t you checking out tits and ass Sites?

      Oh, silly me. I forgot. It’s the hot-looking nearly nude guys on this site that caught your eye, right?

      Sep 6, 2009 at 3:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @BramNash:

      Sorry, Bram. Your argument, if you can call it one, does not fly.

      The use of the term “belief system” is a total cop-out and an absolute refusal to take responsibility for one’s own thoughts, feelings and mores.

      Her belief system tells her that homosexuality is wrong. How the fuck is that homophobia?

      Except it is NOT her belief system. It is the “belief” system of the church that she has been brainwashed with for her entire life. She has been told over and over and over that homosexuality is wrong, a sin and a deviation that is against God’s will.

      She didn’t come out of her mother’s womb crying “I hate faggots”. No one is born hating anyone. It has to be drilled into the heads of little children from the day they are born until their thinking is precisely like that of their parents and the churches to which they belong.

      Neither is anyone born a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim, which are all belief systems that have to be learned. And the children of people of these belief systems have no choice in the matter. They become the victim of whatever religion their parents happen to be belong to with all the attendant bigotry and hatred their particular religion espouses.

      homophobia
      – 3 dictionary results
      ho?mo?pho?bi?a
      ??/?ho?m??fo?bi?/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh] Show IPA

      –noun
      unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
      Origin:
      1955–60; homo(sexual) + -phobia

      Related forms:
      ho?mo?pho?bic, adjective
      Dictionary.com Unabridged
      Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
      Cite This Source
      |
      Link To homophobia
      ho·mo·pho·bi·a (h?’m?-f?’b?-?)
      n.

      1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
      2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

      [homo(sexual) + -phobia.]
      ho’mo·phobe’ n., ho’mo·pho’bic adj.
      The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
      Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
      Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
      Cite This Source
      Medical Dictionary

      Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
      Pronunciation: “hO-m&-’fO-bE-&
      Function: noun
      : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals —ho·mo·phobe /’hO-m&-”fOb/ noun —ho·mo·pho·bic /”hO-m&-’fO-bik/ adjective
      Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

      What part of that definition do you find hard to understand, Bram?

      The only one being “emotionally manipulative” here, is YOU! If you don’t like queers, then what are you doing here in the first place? Shouldn’t you checking out tits, pussy and ass sites,Bram?

      Oh, silly me. What was I thinking? It’s the hot-looking nearly nude guys on this site that caught your eye, right?

      Sep 6, 2009 at 3:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rob Tisinai
      Rob Tisinai

      “Her belief system tells her that homosexuality is wrong. How the fuck is that homophobia?”

      I actually laughed out loud at that one. Let’s do a bit of variation and see how that goes:

      “Her belief system tells her that being Jewish is wrong. How the fuck is that antisemitism?”

      “Her belief system tells her that being black is wrong. How the fuck is that racism?”

      “Her belief system tells her that right is wrong. How the fuck is that ignorance?”

      Nope. None of those sound logical either.

      Sep 6, 2009 at 6:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      It’s perfectly possible for a homophobe to play gay-friendly. Indeed, it’s called good acting. If Patricia can’t bring herself to play gay-friendly, then she’s possibly a poor actress.

      Sep 6, 2009 at 7:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • aranda57
      aranda57

      Pat. M. was asked to change her character like they asked her to dye her hair pink. That’s just not what that person was to the show. Too bad it didn’t even occur to the writers how cool it would have been for her to stand up for her beliefs, have Cristian fighting with her in front of customers and the whole town picketing and boycotting her business. They missed out on a lot of opportunities and a continuously interesting storyline there. They blew it.

      Sep 6, 2009 at 7:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GJR
      GJR

      For those who claim that she played a devoutly Catholic woman, you really need to watch the show:
      - She stood by while her son Cristian had pre-marital sex with a girl, then married another girl so she could get Us citzenship

      - She lied to her son that she was really his mother

      - She had extra-marital sex

      - She had an affair with a married man

      Funny how she didn’t protest to any of those things…Funny how those things were not inappropriate for her character.

      Oh and she hasn’t had these beliefs “all her live” – she was in a movie with Tuc Watkins a decade ago where gay relationships were a big part.

      And for those who claim “those are her beliefs” – well try to go out and say you disapprove of Jews, blacks etc. and see where that will get you. Certain “beliefs” deserve to be shunned by society. She can do what she wants but I don’t see her getting many offers for work on soaps or on Broadway.

      Sep 6, 2009 at 7:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GJR
      GJR

      @aranda57: Um, no, that would be the reaction everybody expected. It was actually cooler when the character Layla said, “But you go to church..” and Carlotta responded, “But I think for myself..” Um, yeah.. And as I said above Carlotta has HARDLY been the paradigm of Catholic virtue. She had to realize she was not high on the priority list there. She chose to throw away 14 years on the show because of 1 5-minute scene where she supported her son when she thought he was gay. Oh my god. She had not much of a problem supporting him in February when he had a girlfriend AND a wife, the latter he married as a sham marriage to get citizenship.

      Sep 6, 2009 at 7:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GJR
      GJR

      @jason: The funny thing is, it’s not like they asked her to do a storyline with her own kid being gay, it was a 5-minute scene. And just about everybody on that soap has had to do scenes they hated or things that their character would not do.

      Sep 6, 2009 at 7:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GJR
      GJR

      @BramNash: By your definition, nobody in Gone with The Wind should have played in the movie because, as far as I know, they all objected to slavery. I’m sure Mamie did. But see, in the world of play acting, you do a lot of things you as a person would not do. Oh, and as to the “my character would never do that” argument – join the long line behind the regular cast members there for 30 years. They don’t like many things, but do the script as written anyway.

      Sep 6, 2009 at 7:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • geoff
      geoff

      @RainaWeather: As someone who has watched the show for 18 years, I fail to see how her character felt about gay people on way or the other, she was rarely on the show the past couple of years and even when she was on more frequently, she was never a front burner character. I do know this about the character, she is a loving mother. A loving mother doesn’t reject her child because he is or she thinks he is gay. The fact is Mauceri’s job is to play the role as it is written for her. Erika Slezak, Robin Strasser and Kassie DePaiva (actesses on the show who have WAYYYYY mnore airtime) don’t get script approval, why she hell should a character who’s on maybe 3 times a month get it? She didn’t want to do the job, OLTL found someone who did. And for the record, Saundra Santiago (the new improved Carlotta) is doing a great job.

      Sep 6, 2009 at 9:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      @schlukitz:

      schlukitz: You know that Jews AND homosexuals were persecuted in Nazi Germany, right? And so were the mentally handicapped, which means that Patricia Mauceri would have been rounded up as well.

      The bottom line is that whether you’re an actor, an engineer or a doorman you perform your job as instructed. Otherwise it’s management’s prerogative to replace you.

      So Patricia Mauceri made her choice and then had the NERVE to complain when she was replaced and try to make herself seem like the injured party. Unbelievable.

      Sep 6, 2009 at 10:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joanaroo
      Joanaroo

      Imagine how Mauceri would’ve felt as a gay actor in the silent film era or even in the 50s. Not only were your roles as straight characters but you had to live your life outside the studio as a closeted gay. There were a few openly gay people but for the most part not. Some gay actors had not just arranged public appearances with women to appear straight, but some studios arranged marriages to women for gay male actors!

      Sep 7, 2009 at 12:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • aranda57
      aranda57

      @GJR: LOL, I’ve watched the show ever since day one and forgot all about her indiscretions. You’re so right but I guess we can all throw stones at each other all day, couldn’t we? Hopefully God forgives us for who we are and helps us to be who we should be!

      Sep 7, 2009 at 1:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ricky
      ricky

      i remember the introduction of this character. dorian (her rich lady employer) was at the bottom of her grand stair case and screamed Carlotta!

      a couple of weeks latter maryann did the same thing on cybill.
      but her maid didn’t come down stairs, as maryann quipped, thats right she had herself deported.

      Sep 7, 2009 at 1:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ricky
      ricky

      jean needs to lock up carlotta in vickie’s secret basement room and learn her some manners.

      Sep 7, 2009 at 1:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ricky
      ricky

      this womans character was created to diversify the cast to include latinos. oltl has always tried to include minority groups in the plots. they were big with introducing black characters way back when. they even had interratial marriage.

      Sep 7, 2009 at 1:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash
      BramNash [Different person #1 using similar name]

      Everything you’re saying schlukitz is part of your belief system. I guess you’re also refusing to take responsibility for your own thoughts and actions? Having beliefs is an inevitable part of being alive. Homosexuality, the choice to behave on a sexual desire for the same sex is not. That’s not a belief. But pure fact. People are entitled to have beliefs about homosexuality, just as you have beliefs about that belief. It’s just unfortunate for YOU that your beliefs have not won over the world, although that clearly has not meant that the gays’ emotional manipulation has not made a dent. – the only possible tool to use as there is no logical reason for the majority to just accept that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality (it’s not) simply because it’s what gays want. I just love how the definition of homophobia now includes homosexuality, as if it really maters. But it does go to show how hard gays have been working behind the scenes. Oh, and you can quit with the “why are you straight on a gay website”, line. It’s BS. I know because I used to use it.

      Sep 7, 2009 at 2:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @BramNash:

      I believe that you believe that your belief in beliefs has something to do with something?

      Sep 7, 2009 at 2:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash
      BramNash [Different person #1 using similar name]

      ^Pure idiocy.

      Sep 7, 2009 at 2:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert
      robert

      @schlukitz:

      Hi Schlukitz, I see we have some more right wing shills in here again, some even pretending to be gay I think. From now on, lets ignore their psycho drivel, don’t respond, it only enables them because they can’t find an audience elsewhere and probably very sexually inadequate or not getting any. Amazing how they deliberately seek out gay blogsites to vent and notice they all have one thing in common….defense of hypocrisy and bigotry of religious cults, that tells you right away who they are. They do protest too much about sexual orientation don’t they, in fact quite obsessively when it comes to same-sex attraction?
      What is it about us they can’t resist or stay away from I wonder?

      Sep 7, 2009 at 5:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GJR
      GJR

      @BramNash:

      - Homosexuality, the choice to behave on a sexual desire for the same sex is not. That’s not a belief.

      Whereas the desire to act on heterosexual desire is not a choice?

      - It’s just unfortunate for YOU that your beliefs have not won over the world, although that clearly has not meant that the gays’ emotional manipulation has not made a dent.

      Yeah, it’s so important to me what they think of gay people in Burundi, Romania, the slums of China..life is going so well for them there, they have truly achieved a great existence and have it all figured out

      – the only possible tool to use as there is no logical reason for the majority to just accept that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality (it’s not) simply because it’s what gays want.

      Gee, little old you deems it not equivalent, so I should really give a flying fuck what you say. Consider it unequivalent or just jump off a bridge, I really could care less.

      Sep 7, 2009 at 10:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @robert:

      What is it about us they can’t resist or stay away from I wonder?

      Like moths to the flame! ;o)

      Sep 7, 2009 at 10:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark

      Ignorant. Arrogant. Sinful. Like held breath. She is a part of the past. The future looks better already without her.

      Sep 7, 2009 at 11:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • aranda57
      aranda57

      @ricky: That’s the spirit! It’s a show people!

      Sep 7, 2009 at 12:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash
      BramNash [Different person #2 using similar name]

      Ah yes, Robert. Let’s just stick our fingers in our ears and ignore “them”. “lalalala” You fail to realize that there will be more and more gay people like me to come – those who are hip to the gay “community” – the fact that it is no community at all, but a select group of stereotypical fags only interested in getting their way. I’m sure you don’t care about anybody in any other country GJR, not even the gay people there, whom I imagine may posses much better character than post “Stonewall” American queers. The average fag nowadays is a gay.com star. Having said, if gays think they can get away with calling everything a “preference” and dare anyone to call them a bigot for it, so too can those who believe that marriage of the same-sex or homosexuality are wrong. It’s their “preference” that marriage be only be between a man and woman. They can’t help it.

      Sep 7, 2009 at 2:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      @GJR:

      Mamie Eisenhower was in “Gone with the Wind??” :P The character was called “Mammy.”

      Sep 7, 2009 at 2:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GJR
      GJR

      @BramNash:

      - GJR, not even the gay people there, whom I imagine may posses much better character than post “Stonewall” American queers.

      Um, Bramnash, why not get educated on the facts and shut the fuck up. I am been supporting and active in the gay community for 40 years. I think nothing except you are a stupid idiot. Sexual orientation is about as optional as being black. If it were optional, then every straight person would have this dialogue with him/herself…hm, should I try it, maybe… Um, no, that’s not how it works.

      Also, dumbass, I give lots of money to numerous international organizations. But your right, I don’t much give a fuck about the homophobia in Outer Slobovia when they live in their own squalor, i.e. Burundi arrests and torments gay people, yet can’t provide their population with basic shelter and water.

      Sep 7, 2009 at 2:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash
      BramNash [Different person #2 using similar name]

      Meanwhile faggots in America are spending most of their time working out 5x’s a week, looking “hawt”, and arguing about their “right” to be married to the same sex. Can you think of a more embarrassing contrast?

      Sep 7, 2009 at 3:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      @BramNash:

      Your posts are becoming more and more unintelligible as you become more and more agitated. For instance, most gay people prefer “orientation,” not “preference,” because, as you incorrectly disputed in an earlier post, being gay is not a choice any more than being non-gay is. Even if one prefers corn to spinach, one can choose to eat some spinach, but one cannot choose one’s orientation.

      Earlier you mentioned that gay guys are “looksist.” Is that what all this ranting is really about?

      Finally, if you really are gay, you’re the most intensely self-hating homosexual I’ve ever come across. You seem to be suffering from something akin to Stockholm syndrome. You need to look in the mirror and say, “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.” :P

      Sep 7, 2009 at 4:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      @BramNash:

      “Meanwhile faggots in America are spending most of their time working out 5x’s a week, looking “hawt”,

      Here we go again…the looks issue. Hmm.

      “and arguing about their “right” to be married to the same sex. Can you think of a more embarrassing contrast?”

      Yes, I can, but you don’t want to hear it.

      Sep 7, 2009 at 4:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash
      BramNash [Different person #3 using similar name]

      Dr Phil, my first post very clearly showed my point in commenting. Perhaps if you fuckers would read in context, rather than dissecting line by line because someone said something you dislike, you’d know. And you can save bullshit terms like “orientation” on somebody that does’t know better. The issue is simple: You have an attraction, you act on it. Please explain how the fuck that is not a choice? That is what people with common sense define as homosexuality. End of story. People are entitled to dislike or hate this. And given that here we are, on the verge of a new decade, and the gay “community” is still essentially nothing more than one big gay pride parade, my initial shock in people’s negative association with homosexuality has been steadily decreasing.

      Sep 8, 2009 at 1:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @BramNash:

      You have an attraction, you act on it. Please explain how the fuck that is not a choice?

      Your argument is a red herring. You are ignoring the fact that homosexuality is NOT a choice, no more than heterosexuality is a choice, ergo being born heterosexual, homosexual or bi-sexual is an orientation.

      And acting on a homosexual attraction is NOT choice, no more than acting on a heterosexual attraction is a choice. You are doing what your sexual orientation compels you to do.

      Sep 8, 2009 at 2:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash
      BramNash [Different person #3 using similar name]

      Acting on homosexual attraction is not a choice, he says…

      Wow! Just wow! Need I say more?

      Sep 8, 2009 at 2:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @BramNash:

      Need I say more?

      No. You’ve made a big enough asshat of yourself already, thank you.

      Now just go away, little boy.

      Sep 8, 2009 at 2:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash
      BramNash [Different person #3 using similar name]

      Why do I need to go away, and not you?

      Sep 8, 2009 at 2:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @BramNash:

      Because you’re an annoying little homophobe and no one here likes you or needs to hear your drivel.

      Reason enough?

      Sep 8, 2009 at 3:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert
      robert

      @schlukitz:

      The homophobia is quite apparent when he uses the term “fag”. My, my, how these right wing self loathers obsess over anything to do with same sex attraction, quite revealing. As you said previously, like moths to a flame. These psychotic right wingers are to be pitied, they are damaged goods, products of a hateful environment, probably learned in the home or in their cultist place of worship. They are frightened, insecure and many are sexually inadequate and very unhappy. These are the types that become tomorrow’s radical fringe groups because they don’t know how to channel their fears and insecurities (Timothy McVeigh syndrome) about who they are, their sexuality. They feel alienated so they lash out at the one thing that they are at odds with, their own same-sex attraction. Its a classic case of transference of guilt and shame and self hatred. If they were truly well adjusted, they wouldn’t be coming to a gay blogsite to spew their venom. Its the only place they can get any kind of attention unfortunately, and sadly, we provide it.

      Sep 8, 2009 at 8:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      BramNash wrote:

      “Meanwhile faggots in America are spending most of their time working out 5x’s a week, looking “hawt”

      What do y’all want to bet that he’d be singing a different tune if he were “hawt?”

      Sep 8, 2009 at 10:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      Patricia: C U Next Tuesday!!!!

      Sep 8, 2009 at 10:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      @terrwill:

      What does your post mean, Terrwill?

      Sep 8, 2009 at 12:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @robert:

      Everything you say in your post is spot on!

      I realize that we do provide them with the attention that they seek, but at times, it’s very difficult to remain silent when someone is stomping the toes of your blue suede shoes with the heel of their Jack boots! LOL

      I appreciate where you are coming from but I came from a time and place that did not allow “faggots” to speak up or defend themselves lest they suffer a “fag-bashing”, as I did on two separate occasions when I was much younger. I got very little sympathy, much less support, when I reported those incidents to NYC’s men in blue. I was probably lucky that I did not get more of the same from them, given their rather obvious hostility to LGBT people in those days.

      Ever since then, I found it very difficult to remain silent when I hear that word being bandied about by people who are obviously spoiling for a fight.

      Personally, I believe that by not speaking up and letting the bigots know that we will no longer remain silent and allow them to abuse us as they have in the past, we are giving them our tacit approval to continue bashing us.

      It would be very foolhardy to believe that by simply ignoring these bigots and homophobes, that they will simply go away. History has shown us that this is not the way they behave. They only feel emboldened when we do not stand up and fight back.

      If they gain an inch, they’ll press for a foot. What is going on now in Maine and Iowa as a result of Prop8 in California is graphic proof. 30 states where DOMA now is the law, stands as mute testimony of how homophobes work.

      Sep 8, 2009 at 1:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert
      robert

      @schlukitz:

      I hear you and you do have a point. However, I think all of these right wingers are gradually digging themselves into a hole that they may never be able to get out of. Their kind of language and antigay venom is what alienates the republican party and a lot of the newly emerging fringe groups that are virtually all republican based. Its going to drive them even more into the political wilderness. When they see things are changing, things they don’t like, the status quo diminishing, then they react negatively as a last resort. In the end, they fall flat on their faces as they did in November 2008. After a while, people begin to realize what they’re about. They are a group of people in decline, their desperation to do what they do is proof of that. The more they open their mouths, the more absurd and irrelevant they become and it only empowers the left.

      If I had it in my power, I’d recommend that the only way to resolve the economic crisis is to institute a stupid tax on the stupid people in the republican party and the electorate that votes for them and compel the religious cults and other businesses who advocate for discrimination such as the National Organization for Marriage, Focus on the Family and other right wing cells to lose their tax exempt status if applicable, and any other breaks or free passes they get from government, and pay their fair share like the rest of us do. Tax them to the hilt if they want to meddle in the political process.

      Sep 8, 2009 at 1:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash
      BramNash [Different person #4 using similar name]

      The only thing revealing Robert is that it’s time for a new edition of “Queer Gibberish”.

      schlukitz, I suppose it’s reason enough for 12 year old girls, and yeah, I guess the typical fag too.

      Bravo for Maine and Iowa!

      Sep 8, 2009 at 1:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      @FlyFoy: It is a nice way of saying someone is a cunt……………….

      Sep 8, 2009 at 1:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @terrwill:

      Cute. I did not catch that either until I looked at your capitalized words in your post again. LOL

      Sep 8, 2009 at 2:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      @terrwill:

      Thanks for your response, Terwill. I hate to be critical, because I think you and I are on the same side of the fence, but as a woman I find that misogynistic word as insulting as “fag” or “faggot.” I’m not suggesting that you hate women. I just think you may not realize how offensive that word would be to most women. Aside from that, I have to admit that the post was cute.

      Sep 8, 2009 at 2:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      Ack. Sorry, Terrwill. I left out one of your R’s.

      Sep 8, 2009 at 2:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      @FlyFoy: No offense meant to 99.999% of the women out there. I realize that word really drives most women crazy, and I am very selective on whom I bestow that moniker on……sometimes one needs to call a spade a spade…….oh shit there I go again………..

      Sep 8, 2009 at 4:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      ;-P

      Sep 8, 2009 at 4:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @terrwill:

      It seems that we are all sticking our foot in our mouths as of late, and with absolutely no intention or meaning to do so. LOL

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_call_a_spade_a_spade

      As you can readily see, the term predates the perception of it as an ethnic slur.

      I used a term a couple of weeks ago that has been around all of my 73 years, having been printed in every book, magazine or publication, including the internet and which has been repeated verbally millions of times, and got thoroughly raked over the coals for it and had it suggested to me that using the term had racial overtones.

      http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1O90-NeversendaBOYtodoamansjob.html

      As attested, the term has at least a dozen contexts in which it can be used that have no proximity to racism.

      I guess we all need to stay under a rock, inside a dark cave, on the other side of the world and keep our big traps shut lest we offend anyone.

      Now, that would make the fundies, bigots, racists and homophobes happy, wouldn’t it? LOL

      Sep 8, 2009 at 4:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      If I might be permitted the luxury of pontificating (old men like myself like to do that, you know, lol), I sometimes think that we tend to take ourselves just a wee bit too seriously in these politically correct times.

      While I would never presume to say that crude vulgarisms are just fine and dandy and that we can go about saying whatever we wish, anytime we wish, about people (BramNash comes to mind), I think that there are times when the use of an occasional vulgarity, such as the term “cunt” when applied to a “lady?” like the one in the headlines, fits the situation just perfectly.

      A number of years ago, a man by the name of Philip K. Howard wrote a book entitled “The Death of Common Sense” in which he describes how law and political correctness is suffocating America. We make a perfectly innocent comment and the next thing we know, we are explaining ourselves before a Magistrate or defending ourselves in a very expensive lawsuit.

      I think, when we hear an expletive that sounds shocking or derogatory being used to describe someone who is attacking us, we need to understand the context in which it is being used and realize that it not meant for everyone in general, as was the case with Terwill’s usage of the term he employed to describe this despicable woman. It is quite obvious that she is not in the least concerned about our feelings or what she thinks of us.

      Likewise, I think the same holds true when a gay male, like BramNash acts despicably toward LGBT people. If his anti-gay remarks result in someone calling him a “fag” or faggot, he has definitely earned the terms.

      With all due respect to you, FlyFoy, and your thoughtful commentary, I think it might be more useful to call Patricia Mauceri on her homophobia, rather than calling the victim of her anti-gayness on his perceived misogyny.

      Just my two-cents worth. ;o)

      Sep 8, 2009 at 5:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      @schlukitz:

      I was bracing myself for the anti-political correctness argument. Philip K. Howard’s CV beats mine all to hell, but I disagree with him…at least with the excerpt you’ve quoted…and feel that this passage is exaggerated and a bit melodramatic.

      “Words will never hurt me” simply isn’t true. Certain words do hurt people’s feelings (especially those of young people) and often breed violence and even murder. There’s nothing innocent about some of these words, and people rarely end up appearing in front of a magistrate for using such words.

      With respect, Schlukitz, I have called Patricia Mauceri on her homophobia more than once (on this thread…not that she reads it). And I made it clear in my post to our friend Terrwill that I didn’t think that he personally hated women.

      Sep 8, 2009 at 7:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @FlyFoy:

      With respect, Schlukitz, I have called Patricia Mauceri on her homophobia more than once (on this thread…not that she reads it). And I made it clear in my post to our friend Terrwill that I didn’t think that he personally hated women.

      That you did. On both counts. ;o)

      Sep 8, 2009 at 9:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      @schlukitz:

      Thanx. You’re a good man, Charlie Brown. ;o)

      Sep 8, 2009 at 10:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      @schlukitz: Will you be my surrogate Grandfather???? ;-P

      Sep 9, 2009 at 9:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      Group Hug. Homophiles only. Oops. Is that discrimination?

      Sep 9, 2009 at 12:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @terrwill:

      HeeHee. Only if you’ll wait while I get my ear-trumpet so’s I can hear ya. LOL

      Sep 9, 2009 at 1:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @FlyFoy:

      Not in the least. You know the old expression.

      “Birds of a feather, flock together.” ;o)

      Sep 9, 2009 at 1:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      @schlukitz: Do those things use batteries? ;-)

      Sep 9, 2009 at 1:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      @schlukitz:

      LOL. I do indeed. However, some of my best friends are heterosexual! I don’t agree with their orientation, the color of their eyes or their shoe sizes, but they just keep ignoring my requests for them to make other choices.

      Sep 9, 2009 at 2:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      @terrwill:

      If I may go off-topic for a moment, this reminds me of something funny that happened at a friend’s house one Christmas. The cast of characters included my friend (we’ll call him Pete), his mother (we’ll call her Eleanor), a mutual friend of ours (we’ll call him Stan), and Stan’s wife (we’ll call her Catherine), and, of course, me, whom we’ll call…um…FlyFoy). I was at Pete’s house for Christmas dinner, and Stan and Catherine dropped in for dessert and gift-exchanging. There were now so many people in the house (including some I didn’t mention) that Eleanor, who was hard of hearing, was having trouble understanding the various conversations that were going on. She asked Pete to go into her bedroom and retrieve her hearing aid. When Pete found the hearing aid, it was in pieces. The only explanation, based on past experience and certain clues, was that Stan, an eccentric, absent-minded professor type (a psychologist no less!), had taken it upon himself to wander uninvited around the house. During his exploration he came upon the hearing aid and decided, for some reason known only to himself, to dismantle it. The sight of all those little hearing aid pieces in Pete’s outstretched hand and the look on Eleanor’s face were hilarious.

      To make this post a little bit more on-topic, I’ll add the fact that Pete was gay and completely loved and accepted by Eleanor, who was even cool with Pete’s partner, Fred, moving into their house.

      Sep 9, 2009 at 3:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • wow
      wow

      BLESSED ARE YE, WHEN MEN SHALL REVILE YOU, AND PERSECUTE YOU, AND SHALL SAY ALL MANNER OF EVIL AGAINST YOU FALSELY, FOR MY SAKE. MATTHEW 5:11

      Sep 10, 2009 at 9:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @wow:

      Huh?

      Sep 10, 2009 at 12:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • aranda57
      aranda57

      New Living Translation Matthew 5:11: God blesses you when people mock you and persecute you and lie about you and say all sorts of evil things against you because you are my followers.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 2:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      Who’s Matthew? Is he hot?

      Sep 10, 2009 at 2:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      Oh, wait. Matthew (now known as David) was one of the babies recently on “All My Children.”

      Sep 10, 2009 at 2:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • aranda57
      aranda57

      From the Bible, silly, but at least you swung the conversation back around to a Soap Opera on ABC!

      Sep 10, 2009 at 3:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @aranda57:

      We got that. Doh!

      The question is, who was the biblical quote directed at, Mauceri or the LGBT community?

      Sep 10, 2009 at 3:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      @aranda57:

      LOL. That was my intention. I apologize in advance to anyone who might be offended, but the mere mention of the bible tends to make me wax a bit trollish.

      I also wondered the same thing that Schlukitz is asking.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 3:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • aranda57
      aranda57

      @schlukitz: Seemed like you needed an updated translation of King James is all, Sir, and thanks, FlyFoy, thought it was just me.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 5:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @aranda57:

      Actually, I haven’t “needed” a bible since I had the good sense to use mine for “kindling” for the fire on one of my teenage camping trips.

      I can’t honestly say that I have ever missed it, as I prefer to leave spouting biblical scripture to you Christian types who do it so much better than we non-believers who are going straight to hell…in ALL versions of your beloved bibles. No translation required there apparently.

      As to you comment directed at FlyFoy, it appears to me that she was asking the exact same question I raised which was,

      who was the biblical quote directed at, Mauceri or the LGBT community?

      and which you apparently chose to dodge with your flip comment that has the connotation that I am somewhat dense or out of it.

      It’s a straight-forward question that shouldn’t require any translation, whatsoever.

      What part of it confused you?

      Sep 10, 2009 at 5:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • aranda57
      aranda57

      I wasn’t commenting on your Mauceri/LGBT community question. Believe it or not, it was only comment #108 and #109 where “WOW” spouted scripture and you said “Huh”? All I did was simplify it for you, sorry. I am obviously out of my league here, but I honestly came with open hands and unarmed. Any Atheist is allowed to update archaic phrases for someone that just plain doesn’t understand language from another era. Just because this is anonymous doesn’t mean you can call me names like “you Christian types”. Please try not to casually throw that around, because you might insult someone. You don’t know me. Now that I look back on your comments I see that you are seasoned by years of experience. You are probably at the point in your life where you are flabbergasted when one sheds light on a subject or even has an opinion that you’ve never even heard before.

      Try to take it easy. Some of us out here do not have an undercurrent of venom or any kind of agenda. We’ve exhausted the Mauceri biz anyway, Mr. Curmudgeon………….

      Sep 10, 2009 at 8:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @aranda57:

      This is rather embarrassing. Someone else makes a comment and here we are having words over the writer’s intent. Like FlyFoy, I too tend to wax a bit trollish whenever someone mentions the bible.

      Apparently, I misunderstood your intent which was to clarify the writers scriptural quotation. Obviously, you had no way of knowing whom it was intended for. Only Wow knows that, and he has not clarified for us. You have my sincere apologies.

      With respect to my obvious dislike of religion in all forms, you are absolutely correct when you say that you see that I am seasoned by years of experience. 73 years worth, in fact. I do not make any bones about that.

      Nor, will I make any bones over the fact that I have become a curmudgeon with respect to Christianity and other related mind/life destroying institutions. I and great many of the regular posters on Queerty have taken more abuse than we deserve from bible-thumpers who manage to find their way to these threads.

      You are correct, however, I do not know you. I called you a Christian, which was obviously taken an insult by you and for that too, I will also apologize.

      As an Atheist, I’d be just as piqued as you, if someone called me a Christian type. ;o)

      Sep 10, 2009 at 10:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Josh
      Josh

      @schlukitz: Do you have a youtube account?

      Sep 10, 2009 at 11:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @Josh:

      I can get access to videos on Youtube.

      Why do you ask?

      Sep 10, 2009 at 11:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      @aranda57:

      Nah. The older I get the more I discover that nothing is ever just me (or you in this case :).

      Sep 11, 2009 at 5:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlyFoy
      FlyFoy

      @schlukitz:

      “Like FlyFoy, I too tend to wax a bit trollish whenever someone mentions the bible.”

      Delighted to hear it, Schlukitz! Let’s meet under the bridge, chug some luglarr and share a bowl of Purina Troll Chow.

      Sep 11, 2009 at 5:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @FlyFoy:

      That’s a hoot! I love it.

      It nice to find that there a few on these threads who can lighten things up a bit with some levity.

      You’re my kind of gal. ;o)

      Sep 11, 2009 at 6:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hephaestion
      hephaestion

      Stupid hag. Fuck her. She can go work for Pat Robertson and the Big Hair Network.

      Dec 20, 2009 at 7:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JesushatesPatriciaM
      JesushatesPatriciaM

      Pat, you are going to place in a place you won’t like it.

      Mar 3, 2012 at 9:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dg
      Dg

      @Publuis: Awesome comment thank you!!

      Mar 9, 2012 at 4:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.